A randomized controlled trial testing the benefits of prosocial writing in young adult survivors of adolescent and young adult cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research on psychosocial interventions for survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer is lacking, despite many experiencing adverse sequelae, including disruptions in psychosocial well-being. METHOD: The AYA Writing Project, an online randomized controlled trial, tested the efficacy of two prosocial writing interventions-peer helping and expressive writing + peer helping-against a cancer-specific fact-writing control. Young adults (18-39 years old) diagnosed with cancer at age 15-39 completed one 20-min writing activity each week for 4 weeks. Assessments were conducted at preintervention, postintervention, and 1-month postintervention. Analyses compared each intervention to the control condition using linear mixed models. The primary outcome was a change in well-being (i.e., total, hedonic, eudaimonic social, and eudaimonic psychological well-being) from preintervention to postintervention. Secondary outcomes included social support and depressive symptoms. RESULTS: ²s ≤ 0.04). For all other outcomes, no significant interaction effects emerged. CONCLUSION: Engaging in online peer helping via prosocial writing is an effective and accessible means of enhancing eudaimonic psychological well-being and social support among young adult survivors of AYA cancer. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".